User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.8870 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I bet more authors than you realize do this--or get a lot of unacknowledged assistance. Even fiction writers.
For instance, in your field, the law, you should know that students and clerks do a lot, if not most, if not all, of the legwork and first-drafting (which is often the final draft) for professors and judges, who then sign their name. If you got the wherewithal, personally or in the form of backing by a, say, publisher, you can contract out, and that contract can say what they do becomes your property.
I bet more authors than you realize do this--or get a lot of unacknowledged assistance.
The more prolific history writers certainly don't write all their books themselves. Just take one example, I guy I actually knew pretty well when we worked in the same book shop in the early 80's, Douglas Brinkley.
Doug's a great guy and fairly smart, with boundless curiosity and enthusiasm. I'd never say a word against him. But 26 books in just 20 years, many of them doorstops? Give me a break. With his incredibly busy schedule and a family, there's no way on Earth anyone could churn out the number of books he has without major writing assistance. It's not that he's not fully cognizant of the content or is anything remotely resembling a bluff, but there just aren't that many hours in the day.
Hell, I also knew a professor/author who was a prolific op-ed writer for the NY Times and many other newspapers, a fairly prominent name in academic and Likud circles. He often had ghostwriters for op-ed pieces, not just books, and in fact a couple of times came in and asked me and my manager to help him express himself better. This guy was incredibly smart and learned, but English was far from his first language (he was born in Palestine in 1931 and didn't come here until the 50's). He could discourse for hours on subjects he knew something about (which were numerous), but putting it down on paper in a manner that reflected his mastery of the subject just wasn't one of his strong points.
I know a guy who spent this past summer ghostwriting the majority of a business book as a twenty-year-old college junior. It was an interesting arrangement - the guy's father had a business colleague who had a lot of expertise on the subject and wanted to write this book, and he wrote out very detailed, organized notes. But the colleague was not fluent in English and felt that it would be more productive for someone better versed in the language to turn his notes into fleshed-out prose, so he asked my friend's father to ghostwrite it for him. But without telling the "author," the father then passed on the task to his son and paid him for it as a summer job/learning experience. That was the rationalization, anyway - it was pretty obvious he was really just too busy/lazy to do it himself. His son, who goes to Yale, is a very smart guy and a good writer, so I believe that he did a good job with it. And, of course, his father had the final say in the revising/editing process. But it was still pretty eye-opening for me to see how a book was not only ghostwritten, but ghostwritten for the ghostwriter, and by a college student at that.
Anyway, to get more on-topic, Frank Bruni wrote an interesting op-ed yesterday about the media coverage of the Petraeus affair. Basically, he's appalled at the shallowness and the sexism of the coverage of the affair, not to mention the lack of attention on the serious questions raised by the saga. He sees that much of what's been written implicitly blames Broadwell's temptations over Petraeus's lapse of judgement. I initially thought that he was arguing against a strawman, since framing it in this way seems so spectacularly wrong-headed, but he actually supports his argument with a lot of concrete examples.
He also engages in a bit of armchair psychology that I found pretty convincing, suggesting that the flavor of marital infidelity that powerful men tend to engage in is based on a desire for unfettered adulation that you don't generally get from a spouse. Based on the biography Broadwell wrote, Petraeus's affair certainly seems to fall into this category, much like those of Edwards, Clinton, and Gingrich before him.
I'm personally quite surprised that the coverage has been so intense for so long. I'm even more surprised that so much attention has been paid to Broadwell and her personality. I guess it's what people want to read...? But I kind of expected the New York Times to downplay this aspect of the story in accordance with its reputation as a "serious" news outlet. In due time, though, I'm sure that the implications of the investigation's irregularities will come to the forefront.
You aren't using it to steal properly.
Devout Chrsitian agrees - Petraeus was seduced.
Since I don't see any mainstream Christians denouncing this radical cleric, I'll assume this is the correct theological position for members of this religion.
No. REALLY.
well, you can post your absolutes but i have been married to my wife since 1955 and though we have been apart due to either my military service or other work for periods as long as just over a year i have managed to not step out in that time. now i consider the mrs a beautiful woman but then i am seriously biased. (i would also apprecate you not insinuating as to what she may have done in my absence. that would be unwelcome, you smearing my wife's reputation)
you make a commitment in front of your family, friends and your god you keep it.
this is not complex.
i understand many folks have had affairs. and i am not claiming any moral superiority. just sharing my little corner of the world
Much simpler and better way to put what I was trying to get at. If you want to sleep with anyone and everyone, fine - but do it outside the confines of marriage.
If there's one thing we know for certain, Harv, it's that there are no absolutes.
FFS. On the other hand: prohibiting the sensible practice of medicine is a tenant of the Catholic faith, and you can't expect them to give that up for at least another couple of centuries.
Balancing awesome with annoying isn't easy to pull off. They both do it well. YMMV.
And ragging on Mrs. Petraeus, for her looks, in this situation seems a slimy style of ####### to me. If she abused her husband, I won't feel so bad for her in getting publicly humiliated in this fashion. If all she did was age, then, no, she doesn't deserve this. And if she thought her husband a good, decent man, then, yes, she should be surprised.
Personally, I hope she takes him to the cleaners. Maybe the General can sign on as a grunt with a Blackwater descendent.
Seriously. It's like proper, operational Islets of Langerhans ruins something in the brain.
Harv, I have known other couples who have followed through on that commitment for 40 or 50 years, and wholeheartedly admire you all for it, without irony or reservation.
Wasn't true in my case (I was married for 28 years, and have been unmarried to La Dernière for eight, and there was, um, some overlap :) I agree with Dan Savage on this: if you find yourself fulfilled and faithful for life, that absolutely says a lot about your resolve and character (long marriages are built on "lust and determination," Paul Newman once said). But it also means you were lucky in your initial choice. I have enormous and directly personal sympathy with people who learn, after long periods of resolve and determination, that they've been married for 25 years to someone who simply doesn't like them, and is determined to make them feel bad about themselves.
Which doesn't mean I don't find uproarious humor in the Petraeus scandal. Supergeneral flanked by twin minor-league Kardashians, what's not to chuckle about … but I feel for the guy at the same time, and find his conduct pretty irrelevant to the Army or the CIA or anything else in his professional life. Always supposing he didn't let them see the Big Board, of course.
Jeez, dude wasn't any good, but I don't think being a mediocre, replacement level lefty with decent defense in LF is reason to exile him to Elba.
i wrote in the lounge that what happened here is unsurprising to me knowing human nature.
still doesn't excuse the general from betraying someone who has been his life partner lo these many years
It's like when we were all getting married at Duke, and the officiant said "turn to the guy next to you and shake his hand; now turn to the guy right of you and shake his hand; you've just shaken hands with someone that's going to double dip on the side."
Well done.
But how does it stir the pot?
Absolutely. Since I'm buggered if I can figure out how it could have mattered to the election.
And Ray, obviously I wrote the bit about possible lines of attack poorly. What I thought I was saying is that the nutters would see a link to Benghazi. This is predictable in that they see everything as leading back to the scandal. My point is that it would have no legs beyond the fever swamp.
Anybody inclined to believe this had already made up their mind.
There is a popular belief in the fever swamps that there just needs to be ONE SMALL THING that will happen and show all of the idiots and morons how utterly corrupt and contemptible Barack Obama really is. JUST ONE SMALL THING. And if just that one small thing were to happen, well, the entire "house of cards," the entire edifice built on smoke and mirrors and teleprompters and liberal media bias would just crash to the ground overnight, and people would finally understand how terrible and evil and socialist and unAmerican Obama has been as he has been destroying the nation.
Ray seems to be tiptoeing dangerously close to this line.
Exactly. If you have no more respect for your wife and the institutuion of marriage than to cheat on her, you're a piece of ####. If you're not getting any tail at home and can't do without it, divorce the woman and move on.
EFF you, every current poster here, including Joey B has a better grasp of logic and facts than JoeK.
As far as I can tell from the interwebs, he is about one year older than her.
There are some real pigs on this thread.
National Review advocates the GOP supporting the legalization of pot.
I think people are more complex than this. I don't think cheating on a spouse is cause to suspect that person is a total fraud and suspect in every way - it means they cheated on their spouse. It means they betrayed a specific commitment. It might mean they are a horrible human being (looking at you Newt and John Edwards), but I don't think it means they are such a person.
Many couples have had such issues and continued on, many have divorced and moved on. For the most part (classified documents and such things an obvious exception) it is a personal matter between the people involved.
Personal note: I nevered cheated on the ex - in fact never came close in any way, shape or form (Well both I and Jimmy Carter lusted in our hearts). As far as I know the ex never cheated on me (the ex is a terrible liar - the worst I have ever seen - so I am pretty sure on this one).
Text with a link to the audio interview
Internet white knights are best white knights!
Everyone has a Joe K inside of them.
And my crime was that I accused politicians of playing politics. How unbelievable.
All this said, I don't think Petraeus's bedroom dalliances should be anyone's concern other than his and his wfie's, as long as it doesn't leave him vulnerable to blackmail.
It is a hard situation to figure out. I think the minority opinion poster will generically have some traits in common, or else they would not be willing to post so stridently as a minority opinion poster (and take the commensurate abuse).
I think assuming an exact or even close sameness is silly though. I think my content and tone would be different than Joe K's, in some ways better and in some ways worse (I actually doubt I would post in a forum with views as disconnected from my own as Joe does; the whole thing would bug/bother/upset me too much - I get too wrapped up in things, I have forever and it is not going to change any time soon; I admire people who can just shrug things off and move on).
so what, according to Mojo Nixon, everyone* has a little bit of Elvis in them too.
*except Michael J. Fox- but MoJo is wrong, I'm sure that Glenn Beck lacks any Elvis as well.
QFT. On this we agree, I am much harder on myself than I am on others.
I don't think she realizes that a honorary title means not official. She doesn't actually have diplomatic immunity.
The fact that you have Good Face working with you should tell you something, Sam.
It's not holier-than-thou to frown upon someone for saying an old dried-up hag of a wife is an old dried-up-hag of a wife who's more useless as a partner than someone who is not an old dried-up hag of a wife. It's a statement of opinion regarding a view of the world I don't agree with. So what? I know you're someone I have no problem being allied with, regardless of how I find your statements on Mrs. Petraeus and other women involved here disrespectful.
(Maybe it will confirm to Joe and GF and SBB and Ray how quickly I kicked you right out of the circle-jerk for daring to have another opinion. You know how we liberals are.)
I suspect the ignore had more to do with history and the tone of your comments than the specific content of the recent comments. Of course I am speaking for someone else and have no idea, but I admit was a little surprised by the ignore because while I found your recent comments wrong headed, they were not offensive or anything.
Still the ignore feature is clearly a good idea and if it helps folks stay engaged and keeps their blood pressure down it is a net positive (though I have only used it for formatting disasters personally).
Oh and in answer to your question about the timing of the scandal - I doubt it was pure coincidence. Not much in the world is. I also doubt it was motivated by anything sinister, ethically doubtful, or much of anything other than CYA and such.
A few years ago I had the misfortune of dealing with a grifter/pro se litigant, who had managed to get himself named "honorary counsel" to some foreign country- and yes he used that "title" in an attempt to claim diplomatic privileges- in case anyone cares the Dept of State maintains a website listing such persons
I think it was making light of degrees in Public Administration
I actually feel sort of bad about Ms. Kelley. As far as anyone can tell, she wasn't having an affair with anyone (at least in this instance). Her name and picture are being bandied about, but she's just a private citizen. It's a pretty crappy part of our society.
"prone"- JoeK is an outlier in terms of how far he takes it- the closest parallel I can think of here is how SBB talks about Jack Morris- outside of BBTF the way creationists talk about evolution...
You say it right below. Right wingers would... play politics... and link this to Benghazi, thus creating a headache for Obama and throwing a monkey wrench into the run-up to the election. And we see this already, with the suggestion from people like Krauthammer that Petraeus may have perjured himself earlier - under Krauthammer's theory due to alleged pressure the administration brought to bear on Petraeus based on the scandal - when he testified that the cause of Benghazi was the video.
Mind you I think a Benghazi Scandal is non-existent, but that doesn't mean that Obama's political enemies wouldn't have tried to create one - as they already have. I never pimped any Benghazi scandal, I'm not doing it now, I always expected Petraeus to testify (either voluntarily or under subpoena), and I don't think Obama just ignored the fact that Americans in Libya were under threat. Perhaps he handled it poorly (I honestly have no idea, and I reserve the right to change my mind as more facts come out), but if so that is not Treason or anything.
The most I'll say about Benghazi is that I do think Obama tried to paint it as not a terrorist attack because he wants to be seen has helping on the issue of terrorism. But - again - that doesn't mean I think he did anything Wrong. Liberals typically see terrorism as criminal acts instead of acts of war - that's been one huge problem with their approach. It is not Scandalous.
Fair enough. I of course take you at your word.
Exactly my point, the part about people linking this to Benhgazi. I fail to see how that would not be a headache for Obama leading up to the election.
This is a feature and not a bug. Some state sponsored terrorism might be an act of war, but most terrorism is closer to a criminal act than an act of war.
If it came out the week before, I'm pretty sure that no one would have cared given the Hurricane. Petraeus probably keeps his job because no one pays any attention to it.
Well not with Petraeus... plus it seems that some of her email to General Allen were actually to or cc'd to General Allen's wife...
but this little tid bit if true seems pretty damning to me:
Of all the people who've been mentioned in this whole tempest in a teapot, Jill Kelley and her FBI agent friend are far and away the creepiest.
Tampa Is Seen as Social Link for Unfolding Scandal
EDIT: coke to Johnny
Well, there's your mistake. Your assumption that the majority of marriages where one or both spouses cheat are "loveless" is not supported by the research data.
It tells him he's right.
And if its announced during the hurricane, the administration would have been accused of attempting to bury the news.
I do make light of degrees that are indistinguishable from the similar education one could get simply from reading books.
That's why I made the point here - when that whiney college kid asked Obama/Romney during one of the debates whether he'd have a job when he graduated - that neither Obama nor Romney bothered to ask the brat just what he was majoring in or make the point that his major was an important factor in him getting a job. Because that has a huge impact on whether an employer would higher you, i.e., whether you actually have skills useful to the employer, or whether you got some silly liberal arts education that anyone with two functioning brain cells could have gotten or duplicated.
The CIA director's mistress may have ended up with classified documents/information, and may have been disclosing said information during speeches.
WTF is "tempest in a teapot" about that, Andy? Why is that not something that is critical to investigate?
Well when you opted for the hag instead of the buxom socialite you knew I'd be no good for the circle jerk anyway.
Hi-five!
Wait. What's the lunatic right winger version of the high five? Should we go kick a gay kid in the kidneys or something?
That you somehow distinguish these from an MBA, CPA or your law degree is comical.
Yes that should be investigated
what should also be investigated is the shirtless FBI agent who was pressing for an investigation of a complaint made by his [wanna be girl friend?] and went over his superiors heads to go to a congressman about it?
I'm actually pleasantly surprised in Eric Cantor not doing anything stupid when he was told- I mean can you imagine if that FBI agent had gone to Bachmann or someone like that?.
More likely if it came out during Sandy, I'm sure at least 3 or 4 Republicans would have accused Sandy of aiding in a coverup. What did this "Sandy" woman know and when did she know it?
Me fail English? That unpossible!
You know Sam, you can be a real #### sometimes, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
Depends. How does he feel about the expansion of government power?
It was his term of art, not mine! But yes, I can sometimes.
I didn't distinguish those.
But a CPA or law degree is attractive to a potential employer in the way that a major in history is not.
And what in the world are you arguing, anyway? That every major is equally useful in securing employment upon graduation?
Yes that should be investigated
what should also be investigated is the shirtless FBI agent who was pressing for an investigation of a complaint made by his [wanna be girl friend?] and went over his superiors heads to go to a congressman about it?
Exactly. The best thing to come out of this may be the separation of the military and the intelligence agencies from that parasitic Tampa social scene. And an ancillary positive development may be the sacking of that FBI agent. Who the hell is hiring people like that in the first place?
I'm actually pleasantly surprised in Eric Cantor not doing anything stupid when he was told- I mean can you imagine if that FBI agent had gone to Bachmann or someone like that?.
We're probably lucky that he only knew that Washington congressman, and not someone like Bachmann. But yes, that was one of the few times that Eric Cantor comes out looking relatively sane.
Even being single myself and hardly a paragon of romantic virtue --
I have to agree with HW... Both among friends and among family -- I know plenty of couples where, to the external party -- it might be easy to say "s/he has let her/himself go", but I've seen plenty of instances of genuine commitment and love where I would be absolutely shocked by infidelity... I'm sure there are situations where 'duty' forestalls infidelity, but I feel pretty certain there are also instances where the commitment is such that it tends to forestall any such temptations.
I've got a friend that's been married 15 years now to a really wonderful woman, who -- from the outside looking in and purely on physical attractiveness, she's not as physically attractive as she was 20 years ago (who is...)... He's attended plenty of bachelor parties, our annual Vegas trip, etc -- and he's just simply not interested in anyone else. At the pro forma bachelor party events, he buys the obligatory lap dance for the bachelor and pretty much either leaves with the early out group or excuses himself after a reasonable amount of time. In fact, last month at our annual Vegas trip -- he took a fair bit of crap for calling her as we were traveling from one casino to another (and just for the record, she then texted me and a couple others on the trip after the call on the trip asking why he wasn't either drowning in shots of Jack or putting the mortgage payment on red... a playful bit of finger-wagging "you guys must be getting old").
She's not at all controlling - they've been out with our gang plenty of times and on occasion, she'll want to call it a night early - but insist he should stick around if he wants to, but most often, he simply doesn't want to... no matter what further plans we might have.
He's not particularly religious or anything - while it's entirely possible he's just one hell of an actor, and actually keeps a harem holed up in a downtown apartment no one knows about - he's simply devoted to the extent he's not interested.
Honestly - I'm a bit jealous of that... I won't hazard a guess as to whether that's half or 3/4 or 1/4 of all marriages, but I do know that there are plenty of them like that.
It would be a mistake to think that everything that was said was solely for domestic political consumption. There are people who read the news in Tripoli and Benghazi. It was and still is in the interests of the United States to sell the following narrative: That Ambassador Stevens was a great friend of the Libyan people. That those who killed him are obstacles to the well-being of Libya. And, above all, that the new Libya is not an enemy of the United States.
Terrorist or not terrorist is beside the point.
You do realize that their are employers outside of accounting and law, right?
...is a bankable education? Seriously man, sometimes you try really hard to look like you don't know #### about anything.
I've been married 20 years, and I'd describe myself that way. I'm not interested in anyone else. And I honestly find it strange that anyone would consider it the least bit unusual.
I certainly noticed women and felt physical attraction, but actual interest while married, nope.
EDIT: To be fair I never had a really attractive woman really come on to me and make me actively say no either. Or if one did, I didn't notice (I am a bit dense in noticing woman's interest according to all reports).
Yes, well, these people are liars. Ask Sam. Good Face will back him up.
This might be witty, if I hadn't specifically defended Obama against the charges that he made editor of law review and lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School on the basis of affirmative action.
So what? Absolutely nobody outside that circle is listening and there's no chance that some kind of Petraeus talk resonates with anybody else.
Well, that's the kicker isn't it. Most of us are faithful not because we are noble, moral animals, but because infidelity requires work, and we're normally lazier than we are horny. But take any of us out of the routine and put us in the star/athlete/powerful man of history mold where women might, on occasion, actively show interest in us without us having to do any work? At that point, the primate will take over near every time.
Attractive to more potential employers I think would be more accurate. Every employer I've ever had has found the history degree more attractive (or finds university degrees entirely irrelevant to the job). The positions I'll soon be applying for value the history degree over a law degree (I'm pretty sure my applications would be binned if I had a law degree).
I suppose it's a pretty obvious point that was meant to be implicit in your point, but it all depends on what job you're looking for. There are jobs out there that require a history degree, and somebody's got to do them, or else...
...I'm not really sure how to finish that sentence.
Hell, if you take me to a strip club I'll bail on you about as quickly as this captain of moral rectitude too.
I would like to think I would have said no back in the day (now it would likely be yes in an instant - though casual sex is not it for me, I actually prefer the committed relationship and genuine feelings), but I am not going to stand on a soapbox about it either way. A large portion of marriages have infidelity, but not all.
This is more or less my attitude on most moral decisions. I'd like to think I'd make the "right" one, but I'm glad that I am rarely tested.
Bailing on captains of moral rectitude has nothing to do with your assertion of who will immediately be bailed on in every case, and you know it.
Well, the Republicans tried desperately to create something out of Benhgazi for about a month. They tried it with speeches, in debates, with commercials, using Sunday morning talking heads, and by using their columnists to try and stir up ####.
Guess what? None of it stuck. There wasn't anything in there at all.
So how would the marriage infidelity of the CIA director tangentially linked to the "Benhgazi scandal" be a headache for Obama.
The only thing it would have done is distracted the media before Sandy hit.
And wasn't that the talking point that the Republicans have been spewing since the election? That the media got distracted by Sandy and Romney "lost momentum"? How would adding another distraction have helped the Republicans?
It's possible that would have happened with me during the first few years of my marriage*. But I'm confident when I say, not now.
And, of course, if you're the truly interested in the commitment, it's probably not that hard to keep yourself out of those tempting situations.
* I don't think so, but I'm less certain.
Nonsense. I share Sam's amusement when it comes to silly internet white knights, but there are plenty of men who are deeply devoted to their wives.
This is generally true, but there are exceptions. One of my closest friends is a tremendously handsome fellow who constantly gets hit on by good looking women when we're out drinking; all he has to do is stand around gazing into the middle distance. However, he's married (granted to an extremely attractive woman) and invariably shoots them down gently. I've literally watched it happen dozens of times at this point. Most of recorded history has shown us he's not the norm though.
That's why the nuns always told us to avoid the near occasions of sin!
Is there a figure anywhere of the percentage of married men who are unfaithful? Like, other than Cosmo. I'm wondering what sort of weight "norm" carries here, data-wise vs. what people are sure they know about jeter's defense and the like. (As best as the data can be collected and trusted, of course.)
Just googling around, I see numbers ranging from 20% to 50%.
I tend to suspect the 50% is closer to the mark, but who knows...
There are, indeed, plenty of men who are deeply devoted to their wives.
And some of *those* guys cheat too.
Look, I'm not making this up. People have done research. There are numbers out there about marital infidelity from both men and women, and the numbers are not in the corner of the rabid moralists. So, I guess we can call Joe in and he can tell us why math is wrong and stupid if it makes us feel bad about ourselves or contradicts our preferred narratives, or we can nut the #### up and stare also into the abyss, damn the consequences.
Hey, I believe in data. I'll listen to numbers that say 75%-95% of men are unfaithful, or would be if some stripper or doctoral candidate wants to #### them. Lay it on me.
I think that people are as various in this as in everything else. There are men who are constantly looking for the next anonymous notch on the bedstead, and there are others who will change commitments every seven or 14 years, and others who walk the line. (Women too, for that matter, though the stereotypes are different among women, and there may be some statistical backing in that; women may be less likely to be actively unfaithful, though I can't see any real difference among my acquaintance in their tendency to leave a longterm commitment or not.)
I loved #7822, Sam. It may be that BBTF political threads instead contain an unusually high percentage of ironclad monogamists, but I'm happy to represent the minority of those who behaved differently. To invoke Dan Savage again, a whole lot more relationships are "monogamish" than we assume, or than their inhabitants represent to each other and to the world.
Edit for (a bit of) clarity)
Well, SoSH is not one of them, so that's 49 percent right there
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main